GURANDITTA MAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packets should be sent separately from the samples of food is the meaningful question, which falls for decision in this criminal revision.

(2.) First the factual backdrop: -

(3.) Shri Arvind Goel, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules) is mandatory in nature. It provides in clear terms that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used by the Food Inspector to seal the samples should be sent to the Public Analyst separately and in a separate packet. It cannot be sent in the same packet as the sample of the food. He has contended that there is no evidence on the file in the present case that the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal were separately sent to the Public Analyst. He has taken me through the evidence examined in the case and other documents on the file.